Madhya Pradesh Court July 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Satya Pal Anand [Sr. Citizen] Vs. Bal Niketan Nyar, Adj and Other
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.2842/2006 22.07.2013 Shri R.B.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt.Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the respondents. It is submitted by Smt.Menot that this petition was filed when civil suit filed by the respondents was pending before the trial court. This petition is under Article 228 of the Constitution of India. After filing of this petition, civil suit itself has been decided by the trial court against which the petitioner herein has preferred FiRs.Appeal which is registered as F.A.No.1037/2012, so this petition which is filed under Article 228 of the Constitution of India is to be dismissed. On raising such contention Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this matter is to be argued by petitioner himself and prays for time. Prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 29.10.2013. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge HS...
Mathura Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1...W.P.No.7941 of 2013(PIL) 22.07.2013 Shri Rakesh Jain, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.for the respondents. The prayer of the petitioner is that the villagers of village Bhonri, tehsil Huzoor district Bhopal were using a public well. The villagers were using water from the well for drinking and other purposes but some of the persons have filled-up the well by filthy material, dust and wastage. not the water of the well is polluted and the villagers are unable to use. It is submitted by the petitioner that appropriate directions may be issued to the authorities to make the water of the well usable by removing all the garbage from the well. There is specific provision under Section 252 of the Land Revenue Code,1959 for the maintenance of works of public utility. If any such eventuality has happened, petitioner may approach the concerned Sub Divisional Officer for the ventilation of the grievances. In case any such petition is filed, the concerned Sub Divisional ...
Dena Bank Vs. S.L. Nayyar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 WA No.479/13 22.07.2013. Shri R.N.Roy, learned counsel for appellants. Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 1.5.13 passed in WP No.7357/13 by which prayer of respondents no.1 and 2 for issuance of ad-interim writ was allowed, and ad-interim writ was issued in the matter. It is submitted by the appellant that by way of ad- interim writ, final relief has been granted. The earlier order passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP No.21436/12 dated 24.12.12 was also not placed before the writ Court by which the writ petition preferred by respondent no.2 was finally disposed of by another writ Court. It is submitted that this appeal may be allowed and Order dated 1.5.13 may be set aside. From perusal of the Order dated 1.5.13, we find that it is an ex-parte order issued at the fiRs.date of hearing, i.e., 1.5.13. not the appellants have received the notice, they may move an application before the writ Court for varia...
Jalam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 W.P. 1911/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.1911 of 2013 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Jalam S/o Shri Narayan Prasad R/o Gram Jova, Tahsil Ghansor, District Seoni, M.P. -Versus- RespondentS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Seoni, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate. Respondents by Shri Anubhav Jain, Panel Lawyer ORDER ( 22/07/2013) The order passed in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of connected Writ Petition No.1909/2013 (Lelam Vs, State of M.P. and Others) and W.P. No.1553/2013 (Lekhram Vs. State of M.P. and Others).2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) G...
Pratibha Singh Bagri Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.12262/2013 22/7/2013: Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is a student who had appeared in the MCA 2 nd Semester Examination conducted in the year 2012. It is her case that her 2 nd Semester results have not been declared and as a result she is unable to appear in the 3 rd Semester examination which is to commenced from 3 rd August 2013. Seeking a direction from this Court to the University to permit the petitioner to appear in the 3 rd Semester examination, this writ petition has been filed. On advance notice being issued and on instructions received from the Registrar of the University, Shri S.K.Shrivastava points out that in the examination conducted for M.C.A.2 nd Semester 2012, petitioner appeared with Roll No.89102 and was found using unfair means and therefore, the entire examination of the petitioner was canceled. He produces before us a copy of the minutes of the Committee along wit...
Veer Bahadur Yadav Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.11241 / 2013 (Bhawna Shoorma & others ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.22-07-2013 Shri Adwait Fouadar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.who have obtained degrees through Distant Education Centres in the State of Madhya Pradesh that have been issued by Vinayaka Missions University, Salem and The Global Open University, Nagaland, have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-7-2009 and the petitioners have relied upon the order passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3290/2012 (Manot Sharma & others versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.dated 29-8-2012, wherein it has been held that the UGC regulations are prospective. This Court, by a detailed order dated 27-9-2012 passed in the case of Smt. Rashmi Rajak versus Union of India and otheRs.reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 680 has considered the law as well as the decision of Gwalior Bench and the Supreme Court i...
Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Dr.Kamna Acharaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
(1) Writ Appeal No.1243/2012 22.07.2013 Smt.Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for respondents no.3 and 4. Shri Diwakar prays a days time as his senior is not available today. Prayer is opposed by Smt.Menot on the ground that on 17.7.2013 a review DPC has been convened treating the year 2007 as zero year while a finding has been recorded on the basis of report submitted by the police that respondent no.1 had manipulated the confidential report of the year 2007 and in the light of the aforesaid factual position, neither 2007 could have been treated as zero year not respondent no.1 could have been considered for the post of Joint Director, Public Instructions, on the basis of ACR of 2006. The aforesaid aspect will be considered on the next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 24.7.2013, as prayed by the parties. Shri Pathak, learned D...
Kalu (D) Through L.R.'s Loknath Kachhi Vs. Chhotelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
M.C.C.No.455/2013 [ Kalu (since dead) through Loknath Kachhi & others ..Vs..Chhotelal & another].22-07-2013 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the order dated 20-8-2008 passed in M.C.C.No.940/2008 whereby S.A.No.626/2005 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution has been restored, the order passed by this Court in M.C.C.No.455/2013, dated 3-5-2013 is recalled. It is further ordered that as the aforesaid second appeal already stood restored in 2008, the application for restoration (M.C.C.No.455/2013) was itself misconceived, therefore, as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, M.C.C.No.455/2013 is permitted to be withdrawn. Let Second Appeal No.626/2005 be restored to its original number and be listed for further ordeRs.In view of the aforesaid, this M.C.C.stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct W.P.No.998 06. 11-2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned co...
Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch Vs. Principal Secretary the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.9767/2010 22.07.2013 Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for respondents no.1, 3 and 5. Shri Jatin Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent no.2. None for respondent no.4. Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent no.6. Shri Wajid Haider, Advocate for respondent no.7. Shri Udayan Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.8. None for respondent no.9. Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent no.10. None for respondent no.11. A prayer is made on behalf of respondent no.2 for adjournment of two weeks for filing reply. Prayer is opposed by the petitioner who submitted that since 2010 this matter is pending so no further time is allowed to the respondent no.2. But, considering the importance of the matter, by way of last opportunity we allow two weeks time to the respondent no.2 to file reply. Be listed for hearing in the third week of September, 2013. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justi...
Chhotelal Sharma Vs. Nagar Palik Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 W.P.No.9172/2006 22/07/2013 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Greesham Jain, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This petition is directed against show cause notice dated 5.6.2006 issued by respondent no.1 whereby, besides the Chief General Manager NCL Singrauli one OP Malviya has been called upon to show cause as to why three unauthorisedly raised shops on the Municipal land be not demolished. The show cause notice is purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 307(2) of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The petitioner who claims himself to be the Secretary of CMS Jayant Colliery Unit when called upon to establish his locus to question the show cause and to show as to whether the notice suffers from not jurisdiction learned counsel is 2 W.P.No.9172/2006 unable to establish his locus and the infirmity in the notice . Sub Section (2) of Section 307 stipulates: (2) If a building is erecte...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »